Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying that AI is of the same sort of danger as nukes? "The danger of nukes is more obvious than why AI is dangerous." Succinctly stated. This is why people are asking for canonical arguments for AI Ruin.
First, I was surprised about the idea that there must be an exact description of dangers before someone can investigate the dangers and consider them. So I was raising the issue of nukes as obviously dangerous, ai less so, we can consider the dangers of AI or anything in the abstract. I do see AI as very dangerous though. My personal belief is we'll build AGI, every country will have some of their own. Now consider t…
Of course there has to be a description of dangers before someone can consider them, otherwise how do we evaluate risk? How else do we know whether we are overreacting? It's not like the "ruin" people suddenly woke up yesterday morning in a panic. They have been talking about this for years. In all that time, there has been no dispassionate but thorough analysis of the dangers?